Look, I'm with all of you guys: this team sucks. Its glaring weaknesses were exposed this year, and next year--barring an absolute miracle--is going to suck, too. The fan base is dwindling, the economic system of the sport is rapidly leaving us behind, the front office hasn't shown it has a plan, there are far too few bright spots on the big league roster, and the bright spots in the minors are too far away to bring us hope next year either through their ascension to the majors or through trade.

That's a lot of negatives.

But I was trying to think this morning of what we can actually be optimistic about. Granted, there isn't much, but the more I thought, the more I was surprised at how much I could think of. Are we still in bad shape? Absolutely. But there are some bright spots:

1. Payroll: After this season, barring an absolutely moronic decision by this front office that I wouldn't rule out--Hafner and Sizemore are officially off the books. If they want to really pare off even more dead weight, Ubaldo and Fauberto could be let go, as well. There will be some raises due to arbitration, etc, but there won't be any more "bad contracts" on this team. Even if those two pitchers are picked up, they won't be making nearly enough to be a terrible drain even on this payroll. Trimming the payroll back by ridding themselves of underperforming players is a good first step. Boston has the same idea. Obviously, we ain't the Red Sox, but it's a start. I'd feel a lot worse if we had Hafner and Sizemore for two more years.

2. Trade chips: Perez is talking himself out of Cleveland, and, unless his baggage significantly hurts his value, he'd be better than any closer on the free agent market. That's got to be worth a good young player or two via trade. Choo, as well: he had a down year last year due to injuries, and his raw numbers this year don't look quite as enticing as two years ago, but his on-base and slugging percentages aren't too far off his career lines. Even though they didn't trade him this July as they should have, hopefully they have the market figured out on him, at least. If Boras could break precedent (unlikely) and agree to an extension with a trading team, we could come away with an even better deal.

3. The minors: Granted, there's not much there now. Most of the talent seems to be in the lower levels and is years away. However, there are a couple bright spots on the horizon that could be making a case for the big leagues by next year at this time: Danny Salazar and Jesus Aguilar. These two have been impressive all year--particularly Salazar--and have to give us something to look forward to. Neither one looks to be a "franchise" guy, but they look to be at least pretty good, and they're young enough that you just never know. It's just as likely they'll flame out, and we can hardly count on them, but if they can keep building next year on what they've done so far, we could have something. And, if this team uses Perez and Choo as trade chips to add to the minor-league talent, we could be looking better sooner than we think.

4. Carrasco: As mentioned in other threads, he's on his way back. He looked great right before going down to Tommy John, and it'll probably take all of next year to build himself back up, but that procedure is hardly the career-killer it used to be.

Can anybody else think of any positives? I'm not looking at this team through rose-colored glasses. I know we're in bad shape, and just as likely to continue that way. But it's more comforting to think of anything good than dwelling on just the bad.

I've been as hard on the Indians as anyone, but the 40-man roster is not a complete mess, as you point out Harry.

I think there's a nice little group of 24- and 25-year-olds. Cody Allen, Carlos Carrasco, Zach McAllister, Jason Kipnis, Michael Brantley, maybe Corey Kluber. These are guys who can still develop into anything from decent to real solid (maybe even All-Star) ballplayers in the next three or four years.

They are players around whom to at least START a rebuild; but there are a lot of missing components, the most obvious being a lockdown No. 1 starter and a bona fide clean-up hitter. Finding those two is a tall, tall order.

jerryroche wrote:I've been as hard on the Indians as anyone, but the 40-man roster is not a complete mess, as you point out Harry.

I think there's a nice little group of 24- and 25-year-olds. Cody Allen, Carlos Carrasco, Zach McAllister, Jason Kipnis, Michael Brantley, maybe Corey Kluber. These are guys who can still develop into anything from decent to real solid (maybe even All-Star) ballplayers in the next three or four years.

They are players around whom to at least START a rebuild; but there are a lot of missing components, the most obvious being a lockdown No. 1 starter and a bona fide clean-up hitter. Finding those two is a tall, tall order.

Yeah. We do have some solid guys. Nothing great, but hardly bad...some #3 upside starters, some #2 and #5-7 hitters, some set-up guys, etc. Basically, a lot of the supporting players are already here. We just don't have anything resembling the front-of-the-rotation pitchers or the middle-of-the-order bats to do anything big. And, other than some of the players I mentioned above, we have nobody in the minors who look like they could potentially give us that anytime soon, if ever. However, if those couple guys (Salazar and Aguilar) could emerge, and we could get a decent trade haul for Perez and Choo and maybe others, well, we could be onto something. It's all so murky and undefined and far off to even remotely project anything, but if all the chips could just fall our way for once, we could get this team back playing decent ball sooner than we think

There's way too many "ifs" to really get optimistic...I'm just hopeful, that's all. Really, that's all we've got right now.

1. You could take what we deem to be the bottom eight organizations/farm teams in the league and compile a list of if's and so-so players that is similiar to your lists above.

and

2. You got no PLAYAS. I'm not talkin' if Russ Canzler, the 9,000th DH type to be run through here in the last 5 years ends up "decent," or if Jason Kipnis ends up being a solid major league seceond baseman, or if Michael Brantley blossoms from 5th outfielder to pretty mediocre starter. I'm talkin' PLAYA. A 3rd or 4th hitter, a 4 or 5 tool stud, a cat that can carry the squad at the front of the rotation.

There's just nobody on the horizon that fits that description, and at the end of the day, that's how you're gonna win.

I appreciate the optimism, but pulling together a bunch of mediocrity and mixing it with if's is where the Tribe in gonna be for the next few years. Doesn't mean it'll be impossible to win, but it's highly, highly......highly unlikely.

Like Pipe said, there are no impact players now and no potential impact players on the horizon. Our one All-Star only pitches a couple of innings a week and is vigorously trying to talk himself out of Cleveland. Our best outfielder, who is just slightly above average, refuses to discuss an extension and has one year left on his contract.

We have no starting pitchers who had even an average season.

Watching McAlister pitch against the Twins tonight, I don't see him in the rotation of a contending team. His fastball is just OK and he has no other pitches he can use to put batters away or keep them off balance.

There are gaping holes at first base, left field, right field (after Choo is traded), and in the starting rotation.

It will take a hell of a lot going right to contend by 2014. They need to use the money they've been paying Grady and Pronk and Lowe and Hernandez and maybe Ubaldo to sign a difference maker or two. They missed their chance with Willingham, and I don't know if they'll get another.

They need Carrasco, Kluber, and Chisenhall to develop into high level players. They need Kipnis to take the next step. They need Santana, Masterson, and Asdrubal to bounce back and put up their 2011 numbers. And they need some more Cody Allens to come shooting through the system.

There's very little chance they make the right trades, sign the right free agents, and get all their high ceiling prospects to come through, and get it all to happen at the same time. It would take a miracle.

The best I can hope for is that this year has taught them the futility of signing guys like Damon, Kotchman, Hannahan, and Lowe. Of course, they could have used Canzler, LaPorta, Carrerra, and Goedert instead and the results would have been no better. They would have saved a few bucks, but that's it.

If those are the 'playa' as opposed to 'pieces' and 7-8-9 type hitters, we're more screwed than we could have ever imagined.

Gospel. And this year and next is the window!

This team is a putrid amalgam of vomit and smegma. There's Legion teams that would take 2 out of 5 from them.

How can anyone in good conscience try and sell season tickets to this back-alley abortion?

You're talking players. I'm talking PLAYAS.

And, more succinctly, guys that have a chance to be PLAYAS.

Look at the Kipnis' and Brantleys and ask yourself what their extreme topside is. Than take another putrid era, the late 80's, when they were losin' a hundy regularly. You had a young Joe Carter, who was a playa, and one who busted in Cory Snyder. But at least Cory Snyder had the potential to be a playa. If he coulda hit .280, he'd a been droppin' 30 bombs, playing classic RF defense with a cannon, and going balls to the walls. Instead, we're hoping for the day Michael Brantley can hit 10 home runs, and perhaps hit .300 one day. Hell, Mel Hall from that same outfield had better PLAYA potential.

Just like how Zach McCalisters stuff almost looked a little "electric" around midseason after you watched him follow guys like Lowe and Tomlin in the rotation. Because Brantley and Kipnis look good compared to the parade of hacks around them, doesn't mean they are CLOSE to becoming legitimate stars...or PLAYAS.

leadpipe wrote:Brantley and Kipnis look good compared to the parade of hacks around them, doesn't mean they are CLOSE to becoming legitimate stars...or PLAYAS.

I disagree with Kipnis. I think he has the chance to be special, same with Santana. If he gets his head out of his ass. His worst enemy is himself.

How many guys actually figure out they are their own worst enemy and get their head out of their ass though?

Anyone still want to have the Buster Posey vs Carlos Santana discussion?

There are ten guys to add to the Posey v. Santana discussion who I'd take over Santana.

Tired of 'Ifs'. Ain't no if with Harper and trout and Heyward and young guys like that. Ain't no reson you can't and shouldn't be finding some.

Again, as LP noted, Kipnis is pretty much a pygmy amongst midgets. He looks better next to LaPorta than he does against actual young guys who can play. Fine player. Glue guy and a solid 2 or 7-9 hitter. Cornerstone of your lineup? You're fucked eight ways to Sunday.

peeker643 wrote:Again, as LP noted, Kipnis is pretty much a pygmy amongst midgets. He looks better next to LaPorta than he does against actual young guys who can play. Fine player. Glue guy and a solid 2 or 7-9 hitter. Cornerstone of your lineup? You're fucked eight ways to Sunday.

peeker643 wrote:Again, as LP noted, Kipnis is pretty much a pygmy amongst midgets. He looks better next to LaPorta than he does against actual young guys who can play. Fine player. Glue guy and a solid 2 or 7-9 hitter. Cornerstone of your lineup? You're fucked eight ways to Sunday.

same was said of Pedroia.

If Kipnis wins an MVP last year at age 24 then we can discuss the comparison. It will help if he also wins a GG and a Silver Slugger last year too.

They're not even close though, to be fair, neither is going to anchor a lineup. Kipnis will never be Pedroia defensively either. And when both were at ASU it wasn't Pedroia who moved to the OF.

I like Kipnis a lot. But he's not Dustin Pedroia. The only way he's close is if you're in Cleveland.

As it stands today Kipnis is a below average offensive player with an OPS+ of 99. Pedroia has never had an OPS under .800 and even at .797 this season his OPS+ is 110

peeker643 wrote:Again, as LP noted, Kipnis is pretty much a pygmy amongst midgets. He looks better next to LaPorta than he does against actual young guys who can play. Fine player. Glue guy and a solid 2 or 7-9 hitter. Cornerstone of your lineup? You're fucked eight ways to Sunday.

same was said of Pedroia.

If Kipnis wins an MVP last year at age 24 then we can discuss the comparison. It will help if he also wins a GG and a Silver Slugger last year too.

They're not even close though, to be fair, neither is going to anchor a lineup. Kipnis will never be Pedroia defensively either. And when both were at ASU it wasn't Pedroia who moved to the OF.

I like Kipnis a lot. But he's not Dustin Pedroia. The only way he's close is if you're in Cleveland.

As it stands today Kipnis is a below average offensive player with an OPS+ of 99. Pedroia has never had an OPS under .800 and even at .797 this season his OPS+ is 110

Its his first full year, give the kid a break, not everybody starts off Like Ryan Braun.

I see a lot of similarities between the two. Pedroia is better now and may always be but Im sorry Kipnis passes the eye test for me and I really believe he will develop and be just as good or just a tick below Pedroia.

I see a kid who just has gotten tired and is going through his first full season, his numbers were very good until he hit that wall, that most young players in all sports do.

peeker643 wrote:Again, as LP noted, Kipnis is pretty much a pygmy amongst midgets. He looks better next to LaPorta than he does against actual young guys who can play. Fine player. Glue guy and a solid 2 or 7-9 hitter. Cornerstone of your lineup? You're fucked eight ways to Sunday.

same was said of Pedroia.

If Kipnis wins an MVP last year at age 24 then we can discuss the comparison. It will help if he also wins a GG and a Silver Slugger last year too.

They're not even close though, to be fair, neither is going to anchor a lineup. Kipnis will never be Pedroia defensively either. And when both were at ASU it wasn't Pedroia who moved to the OF.

I like Kipnis a lot. But he's not Dustin Pedroia. The only way he's close is if you're in Cleveland.

As it stands today Kipnis is a below average offensive player with an OPS+ of 99. Pedroia has never had an OPS under .800 and even at .797 this season his OPS+ is 110

Its his first full year, give the kid a break, not everybody starts off Like Ryan Braun.

Ryan Braun and Dustin Pedroia did. That's kinda the point.

They didn't seem to get all that 'tired' after the All Star break.

There are at least eight 2b in the game I could make a legit argument for over Kipnis.

That means there are a lot of guys I'd rather not have than him. But he's not elite in my book.

.254 w/13HR, 65RBI and an OPS of .700??

Danny Espinosa is a better player than that. Make an argument for Jose Altuve for Gawd's sake.

Dnthateonthepronk wrote:That makes no sense. Just because he didnt look like a HOF his entire 1st year means he isnt elite? Come on.

Plus it makes no sense because a quick search reaffirms you were the one pretty much performing Fellatio on the guy all season, but all of a a sudden now he isnt or cant be elite?

He isn't fucking elite. Yes, he has a a lot of potential and yes, I like the way he approaches every at bat and every game.

I've said it a dozen times and I contnue to like all of that. But I'd say the guy with Kipnis's dick in his mouth is the guy arguing a .250 hitter with 13HRs and 65rbi is an elite player. What's funnier is arguing Santana is or will be

Can Kipnis be? Yeah, sure, I guess. But Pedroia was immediately. Trout is immediately. Stanton is immediately, Harper and Strasburg were immediately.

We don't have that kind of player. Chance to be elite ain't effing elite.

I'm a huge Kipnis fan. He's not elite. He could be at some point, sure. But this year I'd say he was good. Which is better than most of the rest of the roster. But that doesn't make him elite. Elite is top-3 at your position in baseball. As has been noted already upthread, we don't have any elite players right now.

The only "good" news if it can be called that is that baseball is the least-superstar driven of the big 3 sports. You can't win in hoops without a pair of all-stars at the very least. You can't win in football without a QB. Baseball can be won with "solid" guys 1-9 and solid starters 1-4 in the rotation and a solid bullpen. It's much easier if you have a horse to lean on of course, and you can't do it if even one of those solid guys dips to below-average, but it's possible. Oakland is 20 games over .500 this year, and they don't have what I'd call a "superstar" on their roster. They have 7 guys in their lineup with more than 200 PA's though with an OPS+ over 100, 5 starters with an ERA+ over 100 (not counting Brett Anderson) and a good bullpen. Again, that's not the preferred way to do it or the easy way to do it, so before anyone twists my words here I'm not saying that the Indians don't need an impact bat and a FOR arm. I'm just saying that you can win in baseball with consistent, above-average production across the board even without a Votto/Trout/Braun guy in the middle of your lineup.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

WiscTribeFan wrote:This post is bullshit. We all know fellatio doesn't require a capital F in the middle of a sentence, and for those of us who have been married a long time, it's the only thing we know about fellatio.

But it is not only Milone and Parker carrying the team. In fact, Milone is probably the weakest of their starters, although he might be number one on our team. They got a lot of mileage out of Colon and McCarthy, although neither will be available the rest of the season. Brett Anderson has come back and looks absolutely amazing for a guy who hadn't pitched in a year. Blackley has been fantastic in both the rotation, when needed, and out of the bullpen. Griffin has been exceptionally good since he came up, and even Dan Straily, who pitches tonite, has been very good. It is right now a rotation of one vet (Anderson) and four rookies.

Their bullpen has also been very good, even though they have gone through a few closers. Cespedes was a great pickup, but overall they have not hit well.

I do wonder about their rookies hitting the wall in terms of innings pitched, but right now they show no signs of it.

Bigfist wrote:But it is not only Milone and Parker carrying the team. In fact, Milone is probably the weakest of their starters, although he might be number one on our team. They got a lot of mileage out of Colon and McCarthy, although neither will be available the rest of the season. Brett Anderson has come back and looks absolutely amazing for a guy who hadn't pitched in a year. Blackley has been fantastic in both the rotation, when needed, and out of the bullpen. Griffin has been exceptionally good since he came up, and even Dan Straily, who pitches tonite, has been very good. It is right now a rotation of one vet (Anderson) and four rookies.

Their bullpen has also been very good, even though they have gone through a few closers. Cespedes was a great pickup, but overall they have not hit well.

I do wonder about their rookies hitting the wall in terms of innings pitched, but right now they show no signs of it.

Ryan Cook, from the Cahill deal, has 1.9 WAR. That would trail only Vinnie Pestano for the Indians. Milone would be our best starter by 1.8 wins. Jarrod Parker has been worth 3.2 wins, which is 3.3 more than Masterson.

By acquiring Cook and signing Balfour, they were able to trade Andrew Bailey to get Josh Reddick. He's been worth 4.2 wins, which would lead the Indians offensively.

Their advance scouts did a great job on the Gonzalez and Cahill deals and that allowed them to save money (to spend on Cespedes), project Cook to replace Bailey (acquire Reddick), the newly-found pitching surplus allowed them to trade Moscoso and Outman for Seth Smith, and they made some decent FA moves.

They got MLB-ready talent for Gonzalez and Cahill and that changed everything.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

I agree with all you said. I would say to some extent they did get lucky. Straily and Griffin were not on anyone's radar screen at the beginning of the year, and Blackley had been a career journeyman. No one was sure if Anderson could even pitch this year, and if he could, how effective he would be.

gotribe31 wrote:I'm a huge Kipnis fan. He's not elite. He could be at some point, sure. But this year I'd say he was good. Which is better than most of the rest of the roster. But that doesn't make him elite. Elite is top-3 at your position in baseball. As has been noted already upthread, we don't have any elite players right now.

The only "good" news if it can be called that is that baseball is the least-superstar driven of the big 3 sports. You can't win in hoops without a pair of all-stars at the very least. You can't win in football without a QB. Baseball can be won with "solid" guys 1-9 and solid starters 1-4 in the rotation and a solid bullpen. It's much easier if you have a horse to lean on of course, and you can't do it if even one of those solid guys dips to below-average, but it's possible. Oakland is 20 games over .500 this year, and they don't have what I'd call a "superstar" on their roster. They have 7 guys in their lineup with more than 200 PA's though with an OPS+ over 100, 5 starters with an ERA+ over 100 (not counting Brett Anderson) and a good bullpen. Again, that's not the preferred way to do it or the easy way to do it, so before anyone twists my words here I'm not saying that the Indians don't need an impact bat and a FOR arm. I'm just saying that you can win in baseball with consistent, above-average production across the board even without a Votto/Trout/Braun guy in the middle of your lineup.

Are we talking about winning as in having a nice regular season?

Or are we talking about WINNING.

Cause if your plan is to win the whole enchilada, a group of "solids" ain't gonna cut it.

Look at what we would consider the "worst" of the World Series winners, the '88 Dodgers had the MVP and a horse, some of those weaker Cardinal teams had the best player in the game...and on and on.

I would agree that baseball might be the least superstar driven sport, but it is far from a no superstar driven sport if you wanna win.

You have agreed they have zero elites. Cull the history of World Series rosters and see if that's the case.

In all these sports, Coaches...managers...team chemistry...experience...all that bullshit.

Kipnis will be 26 at the start of next season. He should be a solid piece for the next few years, and maybe even get an All-Star appearance one year if he has a big first half, but I don't see any evidence that he's the next Pedroia.

Yeah, we need a couple of PLAYAS, especially starting pitchers, and 2-3 more Kipnis' and Brantleys. Only thing to do is trade Choo and Perez for the highest upside prospects we can get and hope the next wave will be a great one.

The last wave got us some decent players - Brantley, Kipnis, Santana, Pestano, Tomlin, McAlister, and maybe Chisenhall and Carrasco. The next wave (Lindor, Paulino, Brown, Aguilar, Nyquin, etc) needs to be better. Much better.